Electronic discovery, commonly referred to as e-discovery, refers to any process in which electronic data is sought, located, secured and searched with the intent of using it as evidence in a legal proceeding, an audit, a securities investigation, a forensics investigation or the like. E-discovery can be carried out offline on a particular computer or it can be accomplished in a network environment.
The nature of digital data makes it extremely well-suited for investigation. In particular, digital data can be electronically searched with ease, whereas paper documents must be scrutinized manually. Furthermore, digital data is difficult or impossible to completely destroy, particularly if the data is stored in a network environment. This is because the data appears on multiple hard drives, and because digital files, even if deleted, generally can be undeleted. In fact, the only reliable means of destroying digital data is to physically destroy any and all hard drives where it is stored.
In the process of electronic discovery, data of all types can serve as evidence. This can include text, image, calendar event data, databases, spreadsheets, audio files, multimedia files, web sites and computer programs. Electronic mail (i.e., e-mail) can be an especially valuable source of evidence in civil or criminal litigation, because people are often less careful in these exchanges than in hard copy correspondence such as written memos or postal letters.
E-discovery is an evolving field that goes far beyond mere technology. It gives rise to multiple issues, many of which have yet to be resolved. For example, identifying data required to satisfy a given discovery request, locating the appropriate set of data that has been identified, and retrieving the data once it has been identified and located all pose problems in and of themselves. This is especially evident if the data that is being identified, located and retrieved comes from an evolving or disparate enterprise, such as a corporation that has experienced mergers, acquisitions, downsizing and the like. Mergers and acquisitions mean that the technology infrastructure across the enterprise may vary, at least in the interim. However, e-discovery must be able locate and retrieve data from these disparate technology infrastructure in a timely fashion, sometimes within days of when the merger/acquisition occurs.
In addition to identifying, locating and retrieving digital data, the most critical part of any electronic discovery is the preservation of data, which involves maintaining an original source copy and storing it for preservation purposes or furthering processing. This too becomes a daunting task for the enterprise system that encompasses a myriad of different technology infrastructures and the like. Therefore, a need exists to improve the identification, location, retrieval and preservation processes, especially in instances in which the enterprise system includes disparate technology infrastructures and the like.
As previously noted, e-discovery, as opposed as conventional discovery of printed materials, provides for the ability to filter or search the data so as to reduce the volume of data to only that which is relevant to the request. Such searching is typically accomplished by determining a specific date range for the request, providing key words relevant to the case and the like. Improvements in the area of searching are greatly in need to further add efficiency to the overall e-discovery process.
Once data has been retrieved, preserved and, in some instances, searched the electronic data may be reviewed by the requesting entry, such as a law firm, securities commission or the like. While large requests are generally suited for online review, the manner in which the data is presented for review adds efficiency to the review process and ultimately drives the cost of the review process. Therefore, improvements in the manner in which data is presented for review are also desirable as a means of increasing efficiency and reducing costs.
Lastly, once the digital data has been reviewed, data identified as relevant may need to be produced in a tangible format for further analysis or legal evidentiary purposes. The produced documents must be properly identified and include necessary redactions and confidentiality markings.
Up until now, e-discovery management has been conducted on a case-by-case basis, meaning all tasking and workflow related to the e-discovery is based at the case level. Such management does not allow for finer granularity in the management of a case or for links to exist between different cases for the purpose of leveraging the e-discovery related to one case to another new or pre-existing case. Therefore, a need exists to improve the manner in which cases are managed and, in particular, how tasking and workflow are managed depending on case requirements and the like.
One specific problem associated with electronic discovery is the establishment and management of search terms, otherwise referred to as search criteria, for a particular case or matter. Once identified, the search terms are applied to the corpus of electronic data, for the purpose of rendering a data set that is highly relevant to the case or matter. Currently no identifiable process exists for establishing and managing search terms. Typically, search terms are created by a collaborative effort between two or more individuals associated with the case and/or the electronic discovery system. For example, search terms may be created in joint effort between case analysts, data processors, data reviewers or the like. The ad hoc process may involve numerous electronic mail (email) correspondence between parties in order to define precisely what terms should be included in the search of the electronic data. In other instances, physical or telephonic meeting discussions may not capture all of the search terms discussed.
All too often, this is a time consuming effort that presents may problems. In many instances, individuals that would otherwise be key contributors to the process are unintentional left out of the search term decision process. In addition, search terms discussed throughout the process are prone to being lost or otherwise not included in the final search term set.
Moreover, search terms are prone to evolve over time as more information is known about the case and the individuals involved with the case, referred to herein as custodians. In this regard, search terms are modified with terms being added or deleted accordingly prior to finalizing the search terms. Modification of the initial search terms is necessary to insure that the corpus of data is pared down to the most relevant level possible; thus insuring that the review of data, and the costs related to review of data, is minimized. Additionally, informal establishment of search terms provides no means of tracking the modifications to the search terms. Tracking of the modifications would be beneficial to insure that proper search term focus is realized and to avoid redundancy of search term consideration.
In addition, the current process has no mechanism for determining the impact of suggested or considered search terms on the corpus of data related to the case. In this regard, no means exist to determine which and how many documents, correspondence or the like in the data set may be responsive to a specific search term. Moreover, no means exist to further determine which and how many documents, correspondence or the like in the data set associated with a data type (e.g. email, e-file or the like) and/or a custodian may be responsive to the search term. Such indications early on the process provide the ability to predict the volume of documents associated with the search term, and thus predict the manpower needed to review the data and the costs associated therewith.
Therefore, a need exists to provide for a management of the creation of search terms for cases in an electronic discovery system. The desired methods, apparatus and systems should provide a collaborative interface accessible to all individuals relevant to the search term creation process, such that any designated individual can provide search term creation inputs. In addition, the desired solution should provide for tracking of the search term creation process, such that modifications (e.g., additions, deletions, changes) to the search terms are tracked prior to finalizing the search term set. Moreover, the desired solution should provide a means for predicting the quantifiable affect of specific search terms on the corpus of data to determine how relevant the search terms may be and the affect of the search term on the volume of data needed to be reviewed. As such, desired methods, apparatus and systems should formalize the process and management of search terms, thereby allowing for a more systematic and effective approach to search term creation and a more accurate approach to assessing the volume of data requiring review in the case.